This brief post will provide further evidence that Sanders is leading the total primary vote. It is based on the historical fact that approval ratings are highly correlated to national pre-election polls, exit polls and vote shares.

Sanders exit poll share exceeded his recorded share in 24 of the 26 primaries exit polled. The probability is 1 in 190,000. The difference between his exit poll share and recorded share exceeded the margin of error in 11 primaries. The probability is 1 in 77 billion.

Sanders won 13 of 14 caucuses with an average 65.4% vote share and 9 of 36 primaries with a 43.9% average share. The probability of the 21.5% difference occurring by chance is 2.27% (the probability of election fraud is 97.73%).

Prob = 97.73% =normsdist (ZS), where ZS = 2.00 = .21/ sqrt(.135/36 +.109/14).135 is the standard deviation for the primaries.109 is the standard deviation for the caucuses

Bernie Sanders is leading 50.4-49.6% based on the unweighted average of all 34 caucuses and primaries. Let’s accept the reasonable premise that the primaries have been fraudulent and Sanders won in MO, MA, AZ, OH,IL, IA, and NV. Electoral votes are directly proportional to state voting population. Clinton has won 11 RED states with 160 EV. Sanders won the other 23 states with 188 EV. Vote the tables below were created by Ted Soraes

Based on late exit polls (which had yet to be adjusted to match the recorded vote), Sanders is leading by an unweighted 52.4-47.0%. The lead must be even greater since votes were stolen from Bernie in the RED states. Proof? Check the average 8.7% exit poll margin discrepancy from the recorded votes in the Democratic Primaries spread sheet.

Sanders’ exit poll share exceeded his recorded share in n= 17 of N= 18 primaries. The probability P=0.000072 or 1 in 13,797. The spreadsheet function is P= 1-BINOMDIST(n-1,N,0.5,true). There is a 99.9% probability that this anomaly was not due to chance and must have been the result of election fraud.

Bernie was a 56-44% winner in the caucus, yet Hillary won 11 of 18 delegates! In 12 counties, 54% of Clinton’s votes were surrogates (mail-in), representing 74% of the delegates. Just 27% of Sander’s votes were surrogates. Contrast this to the Nebraska caucus, where 20% of Clinton’s votes were mail-in.

From CNN: “A Clinton campaign aide said their ‘secret sauce’ in Wyoming was the state’s onerous vote-by-mail rules that required anyone voting by mail to have voted as a Democrat in the 2014 midterms.” But there is no evidence of such a rule. The aide was not named.

Bernie Sanders had 563,127 votes (56.5%) and Hillary Clinton 429.738 (43.1%). But the early exit poll indicates that Bernie most likely did even better. At 4pm, the exit poll indicated that Sanders had 68% of white vote. Whites comprise 88% of WI voters. Assuming Sanders had just 40% of the non-white vote, he won the election by an estimated 64.6-35.4% (2-party).

The final adjusted exit poll was forced to match the recorded vote. It indicates that whites comprised just 83% of the vote and Sanders had just 59% of them. Blacks comprised 10% – and Sanders had just 31% . These numbers are not plausible. A pre-election poll from Public Policy Polling (PPP) indicated that Sanders was winning black voters by 51-40%.

The exit poll shows that 7% of voters were Latino (3%), Asian (2%), Other (2%). According to the pollsters, the vote shares are NA. How is that? Was it because their respective turnout rates were too low? The pollsters could have combined the 7% as Other Non-whites. Without this information, we cannot calculate the total recorded vote shares. The abbreviated totals have Sanders winning by 52.1-40.1%. The 12% margin is close to the official recorded margin.

Arizona is the latest poster child of election fraud, along with Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004. Sanders won Utah (a bordering state) and Idaho primaries with nearly 80% of the vote. But he lost in Arizona by 60-38%. Who believes it?

The National Exit Pool (NEP) of six major media conglomerates funds exit pollster Edison Research. The NEP decided not to poll AZ. It’s as if they knew they would have to match the unadjusted poll to a bogus recorded vote; the massive discrepancies would be too obvious. But the networks called it for Hillary with less than 1% of the votes in. How did they know this if they did not exit poll? Luckily the Yavapai County Daily Courier did an exit poll – and Bernie led by 63-37%. Hillary won the county by 54-43%- an impossible 37% difference in margin. But the evidence of fraud goes much further than this one poll.

Of the 15 Arizona counties, Maricopa (Phoenix) is by far the largest with nearly 60% of the vote. Pima County (Tucson) is second with 16%. In the 2008 primary, Maricopa voter turnout was 54.3%. In the other 14 counties, there was a 47.2% turnout. In 2016, 13 counties had higher voter turnout rates than in 2008. The 4.1% decline (17,000 votes) in Maricopa 2016 turnout (50.2%) from 2008 is counter-intuitive. Voter turnout in the other 14 AZ counties increased by 8.8% to 56.0%.

Based on the overall trend, Maricopa should have had an approximate 63.1% turnout. It is a powerful indicator of voter suppression. The probability of the 12.9% difference (160,000 votes) between Maricopa’s projected 62.1% voter turnout and the actual 50.2% turnout is approximately 1 in 90 trillion.

The probability of the 5.8% difference in voter turnout between 14 AZ counties (56.0%) and Maricopa (50.2%) is approximately 1 in 13,000).

In the five unadjusted exit polls there were 7,220 respondents. Clinton led by 53.2-44.7%. In the final adjusted polls , there were 7979 respondents (759 additional). She led the final adjusted polls (which were matched to the recorded vote) by 55.6-42.4%. Clinton had 586 (77.2%) of the FINAL 759 respondents, or 21.9% above her unadjusted share. Sanders had 20% (24.7% below his unadjusted share).

DATA SOURCESThe table was created by Theodore de Macedo Soares (tedsoares@yahoo.com)CNN is the source of the state exit polls which were downloaded shortly after closing.The NY Times is the source of the reported vote counts.

Sanders did much better than his recorded vote in the Michigan primary. Sanders had 590,386 votes (49.8%) and Clinton 570,948 (48.3%). Sanders won in 73 of 83 MI counties with 56% of the vote. He won the preliminary exit poll by 52.1-45.9%, a 97% win probability. Clinton won urban counties Wayne and Oakland with approximately 55% of the vote.

Cumulative Vote Shares are a likely indicator of fraud. The lines should be nearly parallel, but invariably, vote shares rise for establishment candidates in urban Democratic counties. It should be conventional wisdom by now: in state elections, fraud abounds in heavily populated urban and suburban locations. Of course, the media never talks about it. They report the recorded numbers as if there was not a fraud factor.

In the CVS analysis, Sanders had approximately 56% at the 600,000 mark. Notice the abrupt change to straight lines at the 600,000 vote mark. They represent the largest counties (Wayne and Oakland) which used ES&S optical scanners exclusively.

Sanders had 54% of approximately 500,000 votes cast on AccuVote and Sequoia voting machines. Clinton had 75% of approximately 240,000 absentee votes and 51.2% of approximately 700,000 votes cast on ES&S Mod 100 machines. The percentages are highly suspect.

Sanders’ county vote shares were negatively correlated to machine types. The ES&S Model 100 correlation was -0.68. The bigger the county the lower Sanders’ vote share. Wayne and Oakland counties used ES&S Model 100 optical scanners. Macomb used both ES&S and Premier/Diebold/Dominion AccuVote optical scanners.

Late changes to the exit poll indicate that the election was likely stolen. Sanders led the Unadjusted Exit Poll Gender crosstab (1297 respondents) by 52.3-45.7% a 97% win probability.. The poll was captured from CNN at 8:01pm.

But as always, the exit poll was adjusted to match the recorded vote. Clinton led the adjusted exit poll (1406 respondents) by 50.3-48.7%, a near-exact match to the RECORDED vote margin. But her 50.3% share was IMPOSSIBLE. The proof is self-explanatory: How could Clinton gain 114 respondents and Sanders just 7 among the final 109 exit poll respondents?

Clinton won by 51-49% on electronic voting machines from ES&S, Diebold and Dominion. Sanders won 68 hand-counted precincts by 58-41% (32,360 votes, 2.7% of votes cast). He won 250 of 351 jurisdictions and had at least 58% in 110.

There is a 97% probability that Sanders won the election given the 3.55% Margin of Error. The MoE includes the exit poll cluster effect (30% of the 2.72% calculated MoE). Sanders 53.4% two-party share and the MoE are input to the Normal distribution function to calculate his win probability.

DATA SOURCESThe table below was created by Theodore de Macedo Soares (tedsoares@yahoo.com)CNN is the source of the state exit polls which were downloaded shortly after closing.The NY Times is the source of the reported vote counts.

Before the advent of the personal computer, mainframes and minicomputers were programmed by professionals in major corporations. Programming was hard and time consuming. Computers were used by scientists, engineers, investment bankers and other analytical professionals.

In 1965, my first job was as a numerical control FORTRAN programmer in the aerospace industry. I programmed the 7094 IBM mainframe , a 512k machine which required a full floor of office space. It was on rental from the U.S. Navy.

Computers grew in power and were smaller in size during the 1970s. I was hired by Merrill Lynch on Wall Street as a manager of software development in Investment Banking. I continued to program in FORTRAN- this time for financial models.

In the late 1970s, the personal computer became available. They were considered as toys (myself included) until the first spreadsheets appeared. All of a sudden, I could do simple calculations without having to write complex programs. When Lotus 1-2-3 became available in 1982, it had limited programming features (“macros”). I immediately began to convert my financial FORTRAN programs to spreadsheets – and added graphics capabilities. I continued to use Lotus as a consultant to major domestic and foreign corporations until 1995 when I switched to Excel (which was used along with C++ for advanced financial data base and derivatives models).

MATRIX OF DECEIT

A matrix is just a table (rectangular array) of numbers. In a spreadsheet, the table consists of data in cells (column, row). Basic arithmetic operations applied to the matrix are sufficient to prove election fraud.

Actual, raw unadjusted exit poll results are changed in all matrix crosstabs (demographics) to conform to the recorded vote. The crosstab “How Did You Vote in the previous election?” has proved to be the Smoking Gunin detecting presidential election fraud from 1988-2008.

2000

Gore won the unadjusted National Exit Poll and State Exit Poll aggregate which indicated that he won by 3-5 million votes, not the 540,000 recorded. But the National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote. The election was stolen – big time.

2000 Unadjusted National Exit Poll (13,108 respondents)

Total

Gore

Bush

Nader

Other

13,108

6,359

6,065

523

161

48.51%

46.27%

3.99%

1.23%

2000 Unadjusted State Exit Poll Aggregate

Voted ’96

Turnout

Mix

Gore

Bush

Other

New/DNV

17,732

16%

52%

43%

5%

Clinton

48,763

44%

87%

10%

3%

Dole

35,464

32%

7%

91%

2%

Perot/other

8,866

8%

23%

65%

12%

Total cast

110,825

100%

50.68%

45.60%

3.72%

110,825

56,166

50,536

4,123

2000 National Exit Poll (forced to match recorded vote)

Voted ’96

Turnout

Mix

Gore

Bush

Other

New/DNV

18,982

18%

52%

43%

5%

Clinton

42,183

40%

87%

10%

3%

Dole

35,856

34%

7%

91%

2%

Other

8,437

8%

23%

65%

12%

Total

105,458

100%

48.38%

47.87%

3.75%

105,458

51,004

50,456

3,998

2004

Kerry won the unadjusted National Exit Poll and State Exit Poll aggregate by 6 million votes. He won the Tue Vote Model (assuming a plausible estimate of returning 2000 election voters) by 10 million votes with a 53.7% share.

The Final National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote (Bush won by 3 million). The election was stolen – big time.

2004 Unadjusted National Exit Poll (13,660 respondents)

Kerry

Bush

Other

13,660

7,064

6,414

182

share

51.71%

47.0%

1.3%

2004 Unadjusted National Exit Poll

(implausible 2000 returning voters; Gore won by 4-6m)

2000

Voted

Mix

Kerry

Bush

Other

DNV

23,116

18.38%

57%

41%

2%

Gore

48,248

38.37%

91%

8%

1%

Bush

49,670

39.50%

10%

90%

0%

Other

4,703

3.74%

64%

17%

19%

Total

125,737

100%

51.8%

46.8%

1.5%

125,737

65,070

58,829

1,838

2004 Final Adjusted National Exit Poll

(Impossible Bush 2000 voter turnout; forced to match recorded vote)

2000

Turnout

Mix

Kerry

Bush

Other

Alive

Turnout

DNV

20,790

17%

54%

44%

2%

–

–

Gore

45,249

37%

90%

10%

0%

48,454

93%

Bush

52,586

43%

9%

91%

0%

47,933

110%

Other

3,669

3%

64%

14%

22%

3,798

97%

Total

122,294

100%

48.27%

50.73%

1.00%

100,185

94%

59,031

62,040

1,223

2008

Obama won the unadjusted National Exit Poll with 61% (a 30 million vote margin) and the State Exit Poll aggregate with 58% (a 23 million vote margin). But the Final National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded 9.5 million vote margin. The landslide was denied.

Mark is a prolific exit poll skeptic who has made a career trying to dismiss my analysis starting in 2005 and right up to the present. He is obsessed with discrediting my analysis whenever my work is cited. But has only succeeded in being exposed as a world-class election fraud naysayer in the process. Mark is intelligent and writes well. But if one makes the effort to analyze the facts, his sophisticated deception and obvious agenda to misinform becomes clear. In 2006, I thoroughly debunked Mark in the Response to the TruthIsAll FAQ (I posted as TruthIsAll).

Mark is one of the cadre of professional disinformationists in the media, academia and government. These shameless naysayers are unceasing in their attempts to discredit honest researchers who have proven that many conspiracies are factual based on solid evidence, simple mathematics and the scientific method.

Mark commented in the Kos thread below: “The question you answered is not the question I asked. The distinction is very substantial. I have always believed it is “possible” that massive election fraud “may” have occurred in 2004; that is true from first principles. The challenge is to assess the evidence that it did happen”.

That is not what Mark said in 2005 when he totally dismissed the evidence that the election was stolen. It’s 2016 and Mark is still promoting the corporate media fiction that there is no proof that Bush stole the 2000/2004 elections. That is patently false.

Mark dismisses the mathematically impossible “red shift” in 274 state and 6 national presidential exit polls in the 1988-2008 elections. Of the 274 polls, 135 exceeded the margin of error and 131 red-shifted to the GOP. The Democrats led the unadjusted state and national exit polls by 52-42% but won the recorded vote by just 48-46%. The probability of the red-shift is one in trillions. How much proof does one need? It’s all in the numbers. And the statistical evidence is overwhelming .

I was banned from Daily Kos in 2005 for having the gall to post that Bush stole the 2004 election. Believe it or not, election fraud was a taboo topic at that time on Kos. And yet Markos Moulitsas, who claims to be a Democrat, would not allow postings claiming the election was stolen. But he had company: The NYT, CBS, CNN, FOX, AP and the Washington Post belittled those “tin-foil hat” conspiracy theorists.

The comments in this Daily Kos thread illustrate Lindeman’s mastery of deflection and obfuscation. The poster out of left field does a good job in defending my work.

A few quick comments:

Mark states that the exit polls in MN, NY, PA, NH showed impossible discrepancies compared to the pre-election polls. To be precise, the exit polls were MN 56.3-42.4% vs. 51.1-47.6% recorded, NY 62.1-36.2% vs. 58.4-40.1%, PA 56.6-42.9% vs. 50.9-48.4%, NH 56.7-42.0% vs. 50.2-48.9%. What Mark does not say is that the pre-election polls are Likely Voter (LV) polls, a subset of Registered Voter (RV) polls. The LVs always understate the Democratic vote. Mark is saying that the exit pollsters never get it right, but the pre-election pollsters do. How ridiculous is that? Bush stole votes in strong Democratic states to generate his bogus 3 million recorded vote margin.

View the 2004 unadjusted exit poll stats. Note that Kerry won the National Exit poll (13660 respondents) by 51.7-47.0%. He won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by a nearly identical 51.8-46.8% assuming the 2004 electorate was comprised of an implausible mix: 39.5% Bush/ 38.4% Gore returning voters. Kerry won the True Vote by 53.6-45.1% assuming a plausible returning voter mix: 41.4% Gore/ 37.7% Bush.

Mark states” the American National Election Studies include a panel survey in which respondents were interviewed after the 2000 election, and then again in 2004. In the data from that panel survey, we can actually see that over 7% of respondents who said in 2000 that they voted for Gore, said in 2004 that they had voted against him (for Bush). (Some respondents switched in the opposite direction.) So, the assumption that exit poll respondents accurately reported their past votes flies in the face of strong evidence from other polls. (In fact, that includes other exit polls, but I’m trying to keep things simple.) Without that assumption, Charnin’s arithmetic melts”.

Mark is the one who is melting. The ANES study was based on RECORDED VOTE data, not the True Vote (i.e. exit poll). To claim that 2004 exit poll respondents forgot or misstated who they voted for in 2000 is ludicrous on its face. This sleight-of-hand is analogous to Mark’ s Swing vs. Redshift argument in which he parrots exit pollster Warren Mitofsky’s argument that zero correlation between 2000 to 2004 vote swing and 2004 red-shift “kills the fraud argument”. But this faulty logic is based on a bogus premise that Recorded Vote Swing represents fraud-free elections. When red-shift is plotted against True Vote Swing, there is an obvious correlation in the downward-sloping graph. View this Swing vs. red shift analysis and corresponding True Vote graph.

to protect those ballots and assure they are all counted this time. Mark, I didn’t look it up, but I thought in fact the exit polls were right(er) in 2000. ? Isn’t that where a lot of the distrust arose?

I think the distrust arose because some smart-sounding people insisted, immediately after the 2004 elections, that exit polls had always (or almost always) been phenomenally accurate in the past, so accurate that they were used around the world to detect election fraud.

It was a compelling story — especially because it seemed to validate what a lot of people believed in their guts about the election in general and Ohio in particular — but it wasn’t true. While they were more accurate in 2000 than in 2004, they were pretty far off in 1992. And while the U.S. has sometimes bankrolled exit polls in countries with contested elections, neutral observers generally don’t embrace the practice.

That aside, if I had a do-over, instead of responding to all the claims point by point, I would probably point to a few of the most ridiculous exit poll results and say, “Really?!” Not that that always works.

Of course, saying that the exit polls were wrong doesn’t say much about what happened, or what could happen.

I doubt we need “mobs” to protect ballots, but in some cases observers can help. (Some states have much better ballot security than others, for sure.) Beyond that, one lesson of 2000 is that it can be damn hard actually to get the ballots recounted. The rules for that vary a lot from state to state.

It was a compelling story — especially because it seemed to validate what a lot of people believed in their guts about the election in general and Ohio in particular — but it wasn’t true. While they were more accurate in 2000 than in 2004, they were pretty far off in 1992. And while the U.S. has sometimes bankrolled exit polls in countries with contested elections, neutral observers generally don’t embrace the practice.

What is your source for this? How do you know that the results of exit polls in U.S. elections were more accurate in one year than another? As far as I can tell, most observers assert such a thing because the official vote count compared to the exit polls comes up that way. But if the official vote count has been corrupted, the argument is completely invalid.

Unfortunately, many commenters on U.S. elections implicitly assume that the official tallies are always accurate, and therefore exit polls that diverge from the official count must be incorrect. After all, if the official tallies are not correct, in some cases by a lot, that opens up a whole can of worms that many people would rather not get into.

Given how U.S. elections have been run the past couple of decades, with the increasing use of easily hackable electronic voting machines and tabulators, the potential for corrupting the vote has certainly been there. One way of detecting such corruption is to look at exit polls versus the official count and see if there are any revealing patterns.

Well, there are patterns and they are very disturbing, tending to point at wholesale manipulation of voting totals by Republican-connected voting machine makers. If you want to deflect attention from this, one way would be to point to the exit polls and say that they are the source of the errors. The problem with this is, if exit polls were just unreliable, over time and many elections, no one party would consistently benefit from official vote counts varying from the exit polls. But, the phenomenon of “red shift” has been noted in election after election. This cannot be accidental, or a matter of unreliable polling.

By the way, it may not be impossible that Kerry really did win New York State by 30 points in 2004, etc. I remember the confidence many activists had in how well Kerry was doing, and their utter shock when the official results came in. Even by 2004, the course Bush had been following in invading Iraq and the like was already very controversial–it was not a given that he had anywhere near majority support for what his administration was doing.

Frankly, I’ll be shocked if you can make a plausible case that the exit polls weren’t more accurate in 2000 than in 2004. But I’m happy to restate that: the discrepancies between the exit polls and the official counts were generally smaller in 2000 than in 2004.

But if the official vote count has been corrupted, the argument is completely invalid.

Actually, it isn’t, because we can compare both the exit polls and the official vote counts with other information sources. By way of modest example, Iagain invite you to consider Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania in 2004.

There’s no reason to assume a priori that either the exit polls or the official counts are correct. It’s likely that, in some sense, both are routinely wrong, although we don’t know a priori how wrong. That should be the starting point of analysis.

Well, there are patterns and they are very disturbing, tending to point at wholesale manipulation of voting totals by Republican-connected voting machine makers.

I should believe this because you say so? Or you actually have some evidence?

If you want to deflect attention from this, one way would be to point to the exit polls and say that they are the source of the errors.

You haven’t presented any facts for me to “deflect attention from.”

The problem with this is, if exit polls were just unreliable, over time and many elections, no one party would consistently benefit from official vote counts varying from the exit polls.

Malarkey.

(1) Circular reasoning. You haven’t demonstrated that any party ever has “benefit[ed]” from the discrepancies between the exit polls and the official counts.

(2) Semantic equivocation. If by “just unreliable” you mean “unbiased but inconsistent,” then your assertion is tautologically true — but irrelevant. If the exit polls are subject to bias, it is eminently plausible that the bias tends to be in one direction.

(3) Handwaving. You have barely addressed the facts about exit polls in one election; it’s wildly premature to generalize.

By the way, it may not be impossible that Kerry really did win New York State by 30 points in 2004, etc.

It may not be impossible? That’s nice, but if that is your standard of proof, then obviously a rational discussion cannot proceed very far.

Oh, I forgot, you don’t like Mr. Charnin, in your opinion he produces “crap”. Well, please show us where Mr. Charnin has gone wrong. The link above references a fairly lengthy article, “1988-2008 Unadjusted Presidential Exit Polls: A 51.8-41.6% Average Democratic Margin”, in which Richard Charnin documents the existence of “red shift” when comparing state exit polls to the official counts in presidential elections during the years cited. Charnin is clear about his data sources and about the methodology he uses to come to his conclusions.

Therefore, if he has messed up, you should be able to tell us why. I am really interested in your conclusions, as this is an important issue and you have some very definite opinions about it.

If you can walk me through at least one argument in Charnin’s screed that you actually understand, take seriously, and are prepared to defend, then we might have some basis for discussion. Your unsupported assertion that Charnin demonstrated something has no more force than if you had linked to an article that “demonstrates” that the Twin Towers were sabotaged with thermite, or that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, or that climate change is a hoax.

I’m willing to discuss any of those propositions, but if you can’t even provide evidence that you actually believe them, there is no point in my trying to change your mind. Charnin was banned here years ago, but if you think he is some misunderstood prophet, why don’t you tell us all what we’re missing?

a fairly lengthy article… in which Richard Charnin documents the existence of “red shift” when comparing state exit polls to the official counts in presidential elections during the years cited.

Facepalm. Why would we need a “fairly lengthy article” for that? We already knew that the exit polls don’t match the official counts. The claim to be supported is that any political party “benefit[ed]” from the discrepancies.

So, can you cite any evidence of error in the official counts? Bear in mind that your current position on exit poll accuracy is that the 2004 New York estimate “may not be impossible.” If that is the strongest statement that you can muster, apparently you concede that the exit polls can’t be assumed to be accurate. Now what?

Seriously, if there is something Charnin has written that you thought was strong evidence of vote miscount, and you want to know why it wasn’t, I’m willing to engage. But it’s flat-out nuts for me to try to guess what, if anything, you actually thought made sense. Or maybe you didn’t think any of it made sense, exactly, but it just sounded so darn smart. How can I know if you don’t tell me?

Seriously, if there is something Charnin has written that you thought was strong evidence of vote miscount, and you want to know why it wasn’t, I’m willing to engage.

Here you go–from Charnin’s blog as of April, 2012, Fixing the Exit Polls to Match the Policy. In the quote, he is discussing how the 2004 National Exit Poll was “adjusted” to match the official vote results by changing various weightings of voter shares in novel ways:

Consider the 12:22am National Exit Poll timeline – before the vote shares were inflated for Bush. It shows a) a net Kerry gain of approximately 4.0 million from 22 million new voters, b) a 1.0 million net gain from returning Bush and Gore voter defections, c) a 1.5 million net gain in returning Nader voters, and d) a 540,000 gain based on Gore’s recorded margin. That’s a total net Kerry gain of 7.0 million votes. But it was surely higher than that. If we assume conservatively that Gore won by 4 million (based on the 2000 unadjusted state exit poll aggregate), then Kerry had 53.6% and a 10.5 million vote landslide – matching the True Vote Model.

So how did Kerry lose?

How come the published Final National Exit poll indicates that Bush was a 50.7-48.3% winner? The pollsters forced the NEP to match the recorded vote by implying there were 6 million more returning Bush 2000 voters than were still alive in 2004 – an impossible 110% turnout. And even that sleight-of-hand was not enough; they had to inflate Bush’s 12:22am shares of returning and new voters to complete the match in the Final NEP.

Note that Charnin is basing his argument on state and national exit poll data, as reported by the pollers themselves (Edison-Mitofsky). The 12:22am exit poll was a preliminary result that was downloaded from a web site (the WAPO site, I believe) and contained data that had not been forced to match the official vote count. Charnin is here showing how the matching to the official vote count was forced by using entirely unrealistic assumptions about the number of returning Bush voters that voted in the 2004 election.

As you can see, this parsing of statistics can get a little lengthy, which is why in previous comments I provided links instead of quoting everything I was referring to. But apparently, you don’t want to bother with links. I also thought you were conversant with Charnin’s basic analysis of presidential elections and exit polls, given your categorical put-down of same, but you just keep saying “you’re making me do all the work.”

This will not do. Richard Charnin has made a strong statistically based argument that analysis of unadjusted exit poll data indicates electoral fraud is going on in our elections. Is there something wrong with his methodology? Is he making assumptions that are unwarranted? What is it that you object to about his work? Anything?

You haven’t done much to discuss my substance (Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, New York), but I’m willing to discuss yours.

So, let’s see where Charnin goes wrong.

Charnin is here showing how the matching to the official vote count was forced by using entirely unrealistic assumptions about the number of returning Bush voters that voted in the 2004 election.

No, he isn’t.

We’re not discussing “the number of returning Bush voters that voted in the 2004 election.” We can’t be, because we have no way of knowing that. What we know is how many people, on their exit poll questionnaires, said they had voted for Bush.

(Many of Charnin’s errors have this character of confusing exit polls with reality. Consider: “If we assume conservatively that Gore won by 4 million (based on the 2000 unadjusted state exit poll aggregate)….” Guess what: unless we assume that the 2000 exit polls are accurate, there’s nothing “conservative” about assuming that Gore won by 4 million votes. I’m skipping over a bunch of technical issues.)

As a matter of logic, then, Charnin’s argument already has a gaping hole: He is assuming the accuracy of the “unweighted” exit poll results in order to argue for their accuracy. The argument isn’t exactly circular, because at least two kinds of “accuracy” are at issue: whether the realized sample is unbiased within random sampling error, and whether the responses are factual. Charnin is in trouble if the sample is “inaccurate” in either sense. The exit poll results in Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and New York — which, among other problems, defy all pre-election expectations I’ve ever seen — stand as unrebutted evidence that the sample isn’t unbiased.

But the assumption that people accurately report past votes fails, too. In the 1989 General Social Survey, 53% of respondents reported having voted for George H. W. Bush and 45% for Mike Dukakis — not too far from the official count, by the way. In the next three GSS administrations, Bush’s reported vote share was much higher. In the 1993 GSS, Bush “won” by 70% to 29%. The most parsimonious explanation is that a lot of people misreported whom they voted for.

Moreover — as Charnin has known for years — the American National Election Studies include a panel survey in which respondents were interviewed after the 2000 election, and then again in 2004. In the data from that panel survey, we can actually see that over 7% of respondents who said in 2000 that they voted for Gore, said in 2004 that they had voted against him (for Bush). (Some respondents switched in the opposite direction.)

So, the assumption that exit poll respondents accurately reported their past votes flies in the face of strong evidence from other polls. (In fact, that includes other exit polls, but I’m trying to keep things simple.) Without that assumption, Charnin’s arithmetic melts.

I’ve presented two specific examples, but if you look at GSS and ANES data, you can see for yourself that present or past incumbents’reported vote shares generally do increase over time (although usually not as much as in the 1993 GSS).

As you can see, this parsing of statistics can get a little lengthy

Yes, but the statistics are basically irrelevant, because Charnin’s assumptions are bogus. It’s logically possible that part of his argument somehow can be salvaged — but the apparent excess of Bush 2000 voters in the weighted 2004 exit poll results is what we would expect, given the general propensity I described above. The GSS and NES data are freely available for download, and in many cases can be analyzed via UC-Berkeley’sSurvey Documentation and Analysis archive.

The fact that you find Charnin credible, and I don’t, doesn’t make your comments more serious than mine. But it’s one of those fundamental disconnects. If you find Charnin credible and I don’t, I suppose you will consider that you’re making an important point just by citing him, while I consider that you’re making no point at all. It’s more interesting to be talking about actual arguments, I think.

I mean… this is ridiculous. The USA are like a banana republic. The national media won’t cover this abomination. Maybe it’s time we alert the international media to what’s happening in the USA. The shenanigans in Florida, Ohio, and God knows where else. It’s getting ridiculous and scary. The republicans are totally out of control.

If you live outside the USA, try to send a message to the journalists of your country who are covering american politics and ask them to do some digging.

on you. The reality is quite a bit more chilling and dangerous. Why don’t you read a few books and articles about it. For instance the book I mentioned above, written by a very respected author or any of the many books on Karl Rove that you can get from your public library, Amazon or on your Nook. Anyone who does not view Karl Rove as a clear and present danger is just not paying attention.

The question isn’t whether Karl Rove is “a clear and present danger.” The question seems to be whether Karl Rove can steal any presidential election he pleases, more or less by snapping his fingers, but decided to let 2008 go because he hates John McCain.

But if you don’t like that paraphrase of the question, I’m happy to hear the question in your own words. Only, make your own argument; don’t tell me to go read stuff and figure out what your argument is. You can cite sources to support your argument, but you have to make it first.

is that in 2004, the exit polls projected that Kerry would win Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania by 14-15 points each, and New York by over 30. And so on. Most of the largest discrepancies weren’t even in swing states.

Conceivably you believe that those projections were correct within sampling error. You’re not likely to convince neutral political observers. That’s a major reason why the argument hasn’t caught on: it’s a bad argument, and Bob Fitrakis should have known that for years.

if I understand it correctly, is that exit polls in general are unreliable indicators of the actual vote. But the examples you give were all taken from an election that was almost certainly corrupt, in a big way.

To repeat a segment of the article that inspired my diary:

Charnin looked at 300 presidential state exit polls from 1988 to 2008, 15 elections would be expected to fall outside the margin of error. Shockingly, 137 of the 300 presidential exit polls fell outside the margin of error.

What is the probability of this happening? “One in one million trillion trillion trlllion trillion trillion trillion,” said Charnin….132 of the elections fell outside the margin in favor of the GOP. We would expect eight.

Here we have a guy who has done real statistical analysis of exit polls versus the official count. He not only finds the exit polls trending well outside the margin of error in a shocking number of cases, he finds a bias towards one side that is really something.

This cannot be explained by anything other than direct manipulation of vote totals. If exit polls were just no good, we would expect the discrepancies to be all over the map–essentially random in a large study. But Charnin finds anything but randomness. Face it. The fix is in.

The problem with exit polls is that in 2004, the exit polls projected that Kerry would win Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania by 14-15 points each, and New York by over 30.

If the best you have to say about that is that the 2004 election was almost certainly corrupt, you are missing the point.

Here we have a guy who has done real statistical analysis of exit polls versus the official count.

No, there we have a guy who has done crap, at length, for years. If you care to argue otherwise, step right up. Maybe you can start by discussing the four states I’ve mentioned. Do you think those exit poll results are plausible?

Yes, I understand, you’ll ask the questions around here. That is the hallmark of crap CT: the burden of proof is always on the skeptic.

I’ll give you another chance to answer the simple question that you ducked: Do you think those exit poll results are plausible?

Welcome to Daily Kos, where extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. If you really believe, in any worthy sense of the word, that Charnin’s work supports your weirdly smug conclusion that “the fix is in,” then why not marshal an argument, instead of appealing to dubious authority?

I’ve encountered many fans of Charnin, but no one who can explain and defend his analyses in detail. Not that I care whether you defend Charnin’s analyses, per se: feel free to offer your own.

But if that is too ambitious, you might start by answering my question about the exit poll results.

I do not know if the exit poll results you cite have problems or not. But YOU make an awful lot of claims that you do not back up, while accusing other people of producing “crap”. If you are going to make that sort of charge, you need to provide some sort of evidence for it. So far all you have done is throw charges at Mr. Charnin’s work. If you have some evidence for those charges, produce it in a comment or give us a link.

Dude, you’re apparently alleging massive election fraud in which leading Democrats are more or less complicit. I’m alleging that Richard Charnin’s work is bad. Which one of those is an extraordinary claim? Which of those even matters? Why do you expect me to do all the work? Are you even interested in this topic, or are you just yanking my chain?

Do you actually believe that massive fraud occurred in 2004? If so, for heaven’s sake, aren’t you going to say why? Do you have something better than that it isn’t impossiblethat Kerry won New York by over 30 points? Talk about weak tea….

You are going around in circles. You allege that Richard Charnin’s work is bad. Fine. Tell us why.

Yes, I believe it is possible massive election fraud may have occurred in 2004. The work of Richard Charnin and others informs my belief. If you cannot explain why you think his work is no good, you cannot address the issue. (Hint: Follow the link.)

Yes, I believe it is possible massive election fraud may have occurred in 2004.

The question you answered is not the question I asked. The distinction is very substantial. I have always believed it is “possible” that massive election fraud “may” have occurred in 2004; that is true from first principles. The challenge is to assess the evidence that it did happen. You don’t have to profess certainty — in fact, you probably shouldn’t — but you could at least state a non-trivial opinion.

Pardon my impatience, but I’ve watched people move the goalposts in this direction many, many times.

Read the new book called “Boss Rove” by Craig Ubgar which talks about the sleazy vote manipulation that has likely occurred under Rove’s tutelage in the past. I think there is real cause for concern which is also why I think it’s imperative that we ensure that PBO has too big a win margin the tamper with. But if, god forbid, that fails, we all have to be ready to fight like hell in the aftermath. No lying down and getting run over like in FL 2000.

and I wrote this diary back in 2006 that details a hypothetical way of programming a touch screen monitor voting program to push the vote to one party while simultaneously minimizing the possibility of being detected. It’s far more simple than most people imagine.

Allowing private corporations, who have a vested interest in the outcome of an election, who have openly stated their preferences for one political party over another, to develop and implement a voting system using such an easily manipulated tool as a computer is a grave threat to our Democracy.

And reflectionsv37 explains exactly why. I urge everyone on this thread to go read it.

It didn’t get much attention at the time. I haven’t heard many complaints this election season about votes being switched, but if I start hearing it again, I’ll rework it and try to shorten it a little and repost it so others might get a chance to see it.

I get called paranoid, and a CT, but please answer one question for me and then I’ll calm down : Why , when there are computer errors do they always favor the republicans….Patiently awaiting answers…….

I don’t agree that computer errors always favor the Republicans. Sometimes Democrats pick up votes when errors are corrected (as, apparently, in Palm Beach, although that election was nonpartisan on the ballot). Sometimes Republicans do (as in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election last year). Sometimes the errors occur in primaries (Pottawattamie County, Iowa). These were various kinds of errors; there is no evidence of fraud in any of them.

Susan Bucher is right to be concerned that her systems are unreliable and her vendor is, too. That isn’t a CT. Making claims of fact without raising a finger to support them — and telling people to Be Very Afraid, but nothing else — is exactly what a lot of us consider CT.

right now – Bain Capital owns the company that owns and has distributed voting machines for Ohio – the company’s president is a FORMER FUCKING CAMPAIGN MANAGER for ROMNEY – is HORRIFYING to me. The fact that the MSM has TOTALLY ignored this and won’t report on it before the election is fucking STAGGERING.

It is instructive to view the 2014 Senate Exit Polls in North Carolina, Alaska and Colorado. These were close elections won by the Republicans.

In each poll, vote shares for minority voters are missing, although the percentages of the total vote are listed. As usual, the exit polls matched the recorded vote. But when plausible minority vote share estimates are added, the Democrat is the winner.

North Carolina

Tillis (R) was a 48.8-47.3% winner.

Just 95% of the 2783 exit poll respondents vote shares are given. The published share is a close match to the recorded vote.

Assume that Hagan won 70% of the missing Hispanics, Asians and Other voters.

Hagan wins by 48.1-47.5%.

NC 2014

Exit Poll

2783 respondents

MoE: 2.41%

Pct

Hagan (D)

Tillis (R)

Haugh (I)

Whiite

74%

33%

62%

4%

Black

21%

96%

3%

1%

Hispanic

3%

na

na

na

Asian

1%

na

na

na

Other

1%

na

na

na

Adj.Share

95%

44.6%

46.5%

3.2%

Recorded

100%

47.3%

48.8%

3.7%

True Share

Hagan

Tillis

Haugh

White

74%

33%

62%

4%

Black

21%

96%

3%

1%

Hispanic

3%

70%

20%

10%

Asian

1%

70%

20%

10%

Other

1%

70%

20%

10%

True share

100%

48.1%

47.5%

3.7%

Recorded

100%

47.3%

48.8%

3.7%

Alaska

Sullivan (R) was a 48.8-45.6% winner.

Just 86% of 1,826 exit poll respondents vote shares are given. The published share is a close match to the recorded vote.

Assume Begich won 94% of missing Blacks and just 50% of Hispanic and Asian voters (conservative).

Begich is a 48.0-46.6% winner.

AK 2014

Exit Poll

1826 respondents

MoE: 2.98%

Race

Begich (D)

Sullivan (R)

Other

White

78%

45%

49%

6%

Black

3%

na

na

na

Hispanic

5%

na

na

na

Asian

6%

na

na

na

Alaskan

8%

57%

38%

5%

Adj.Share

86.0%

39.7%

41.3%

5.1%

Recorded

100%

45.6%

48.8%

3.7%

True Share

Begich (D)

Sullivan (R)

Other

White

78%

45%

49%

6%

Black

3%

94%

4%

2%

Hispanic

5%

50%

47%

3%

Asian

6%

50%

47%

3%

Alaskan

8%

57%

38%

5%

True share

100%

48.0%

46.6%

5.5%

Recorded

100%

45.6%

48.8%

5.6%

Colorado

Garner won the recorded vote by 48.5-46.0%.

A whopping 20% of 994 exit poll respondents vote shares were not included in the poll. Assume that Udall won 95% of the missing Blacks, and 60% of Hispanics, Asians and Other voters.

The media wants you to ignore the Unadjusted exit polls because they claim that they do not represent the actual vote counts.

The media maintains that ADJUSTED exit polls will always converge to the recorded vote count which they want you to believe is always accurate.

The media claims that the unadjusted exit polls have been shown to be grossly inaccurate in all presidential elections since 1988. And the pattern has persisted in congressional and primary elections.

The media claims that the recorded votes are official and tell us how people really voted and that we should not believe the unadjusted exit polls. Systemic election fraud is a myth. If it were true, the media would have reported it, just like they reported on Acorn.

The National Election Pool claims that the number of states exit polled in 2012 was cut to 31 because of lack of funds and expect us to believe this canard.

The media lauds voting machines, claiming they are faster and more accurate than humans. But the media does not tell you that programmers know how to code 1+1 =3.

Even though we cannot view the proprietary software code, we should accept the Diebold machine counts as being accurate. The fact that the code is proprietary does not mean that there is something to hide.

Media pundits, pollsters and academics ignore election fraud, implicitly assuming that the Fraud Factor is ZERO – an unscientific, faith-based rationale for adjusting exit polls to match the recorded vote.

The media wants you to believe that the exit polls are always wrong:
Recorded Vote = Unadjusted Exit poll + Exit Poll error
Final Exit Poll = Recorded Vote

The media does not want you to know that the recorded vote is fraudulent:
Recorded Vote = Unadjusted Exit Poll + Fraud Factor

The corporate media says that in 2008, Obama won the recorded vote by 9.5 million with a 53% share. But the media never mentioned that the unadjusted state exit polls indicated that Obama won by 23 million votes with a 58.0% share. Or that he won the National Exit Poll of 17,836 respondents with 61% and a 30 million vote margin.

In 2004, the corporate media claimed that Bush was the winner by 3.0 million votes and that the exit polls “behaved badly” and misled us into believing that Kerry was the winner by at least 6 million votes (52-47%).

In 2000, the media failed to mention that the unadjusted state exit polls showed that Gore was a 50-46% winner by 5 million votes – not his 540,000 recorded margin. And that Gore had at least 70% of 175,000 uncounted, spoiled ballots in Florida.

These facts have NEVER been disclosed by the media:
1) In 1988-2008, 135 of 274 unadjusted state exit polls exceeded the margin of error, of which 131 red-shifted to the Republican. The joint probability of this occurrence is ONE in TRILLIONS. That’s ZERO.

2) The unadjusted 1988-2008 State and National exit polls showed the Democrats won by 52-42%. They won the recorded vote by just 48-46%. The probability is ZERO.

The media claims it is all just “voodoo math” by conspiracy theorists. But the media never did the math since it would reveal that state and national unadjusted exit poll discrepancies from the recorded vote results in ZERO probabilities – proving systemic election fraud.

The media would rather maintain the myth of fair elections than actually investigate..

This question has proven to be devastating for those who still believe there is no such thing as election fraud. So devastating, it was not asked in the 2012 presidential exit poll or the 2014 House exit poll.

The exit pollsters freely admit that they adjust the polls to match the recorded vote. The rationale is that since the exit polls are always off by an 8% average margin, they must be adjusted to match the pristine, fraud-free recorded vote. The pollsters never consider the possibility that the unadjusted exit polls were accurate; they claim that the discrepancies are due to consistently bad polling.

So why do the pollsters get paid the big bucks from the National Election Pool? In any other profession, if your analysis is way off, you had better get it right the next time. If it’s way off on your second try, you get one more chance. If you fail a third time, that’s it. Someone else gets your job. But here’s the catch: the pollsters were accurate; the unadjusted polls matched the True Vote. So why did they have to adjust the polls to match the bogus recorded vote?

The unadjusted exit polls were forced to match the recorded vote in every presidential election since 1988. The Democrats won the state and national exit polls by 52-42%, but won the the recorded vote by just 48-46%. The probability of the discrepancy: 1 in trillions. The exit polls were right. The vote counts were wrong. It’s as simple as that.

Does the rationale sound crazy to you? Despite all of the anecdotal evidence of election fraud, it is never considered by the corporate media (the National Election Pool) who fund the exit pollsters.

This graph shows that in the 1972, 1988, 1992, 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, the National Exit Poll was forced to claim there was over 100% turnout of living Nixon, Bush1 and Bush2 voters from the prior election. Impossible – and proof of fraud.

I have been posting on this very unscientific procedure since 2004. In this post I will review the basic method used to match the vote: changing the mix of returning voters. We will look at the 2004-2008 presidential elections and the 2010-2014 Wisconsin and Florida governor elections. The pattern of deceit will be revealed by adjustments made to the number of exit poll respondents and returning voters to match the official recorded vote counts – and cover up the fraud.

2004 Presidential
There were 13,660 National Exit Poll respondents and 51.7% said they voted for Kerry. But Bush won the recorded vote by 50.8-48.3%. So the pollsters had to switch 6.7% of Kerry respondents to Bush.

2008 Presidential
There were 17,836 National Exit Poll respondents. Obama had 61% in the unadjusted poll but just 53% in the vote count. The adjusted 2008 National Exit Poll indicated that 46% of 2008 voters (60 million) were returning Bush 2004 voters and 37% (48 million) returning Kerry voters.This was impossible; it implied a 103% turnout of living Bush 2004 voters. Bush won the recorded vote by 3 million. But Kerry won the unadjusted exit poll by 6 million and the True vote by nearly 10 million. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=1

2010 Florida Governor
Scott defeated Sink with 50.59% of the 2-party vote. But Sink easily won the unadjusted exit poll by 50.8-45.4% (3150 respondents, 2% margin of error). In order to match the recorded vote, the adjusted exit poll indicated a 47/47% split in returning Obama and McCain voters, 3% were new and 3% returning 3rd party (other) -but vote shares were NA for new and other voters. In order to match the recorded vote, Scott needed 67% of the 6% NA. This is implausible. Based on the unadjusted exit poll, Sink had 57% of this group.

2014 Florida Governor
Scott had 50.58% of the 2-party vote, within .01% of his 2010 share. Just a coincidence? The question How Did You Vote in 2010? was not asked, so let’s look at the Florida exit poll Party-ID demographic. There were 11.9 million registered voters. Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 500,000 (38.8% Dem; 35.0% Rep; 26.2% Other). But in matching the recorded vote, the Party-ID split was 31D-35R-33I. Assuming that the True split was equal to the actual voter registration mix, Crist is the winner by 50.9-44.6%. Crist had stronger support among Democrats (91%) than Scott had among Republicans (88%). He won Independents by 46-44%. So how did he lose?

2012 Wisconsin Walker Recall
In 2008, Obama won Wisconsin with a 56.2% recorded share. He had 63.3% in the unadjusted exit poll, far beyond the 2.5% margin of error. The exit poll is strong evidence that election fraud sharply reduced Obama’s True Vote.